1. Field of the Invention
This invention pertains to telecommunications, and more particularly, to a method and apparatus for the near real-time synchronization of voice communications.
2. Description of Related Art
The current state of voice communications suffers from inertia. In spite of automated switching, high bandwidth networks and technologies such as satellites, fiber optics, Voice over IP (VoIP), wireless and cellular networks, there has been little change in how people use telephones. One is still required to pick up the phone, dial another party, wait for a connection to be made, and then engage in a full-duplex, synchronous conversation with the dialed party. If the recipient does not answer, no connection is made, and the conversation does not take place.
At best, a one-way asynchronous voice message may be left if the recipient has voice mail. The process of delivering the voice mail, however, is burdensome and time consuming. The caller is required to wait for the phone on the other end to stop ringing, transition into the voice mail system, listen to a voice message greeting, and then leave the message. Current voice mail systems are also inconvenient for the recipient. The recipient has to dial a code to access their voice mail, navigate through a series of prompts, listen to any earlier received voice messages in the queue, and then finally listen to the message of the sender.
Another drawback with typical voice mail systems is the inability to organize or permanently archive voice messages. With some voice mail systems, a user may save a message, but it is automatically deleted after a predetermined period of time and lost forever.
Yet another problem with current voice mail systems is that a connection must be made between the caller and the voice mail system before a message can be left. If no connection is made, there is no way for the caller to leave a message.
Current telephone systems are based on relatively simplistic usage patterns: real-time live calls or disjointed voice mail messages, which are typically deleted as they are heard. These forms of voice communications do not capture the real power that can be achieved with voice communication or take advantage of the advances of network speed and bandwidth that is now available. Also, if the phone network is down, or is inaccessible, (e.g., a cell phone user is in an area of no coverage or the phone lines are down due to bad weather), no communication can take place.
In general, telephone based communications have not kept pace with the advances in text-based communications. Instant messaging, emailing, faxing, chat groups, and the ability to archive text messages, are all commonplace with text based communications. Other than voice mail, there are few existing tools available to manage and/or archive voice messages. In comparison, the tools currently available to manage telephone communications are primitive compared to text communications.
The corporate environment provides just one example of the weakness in current voice communication tools. There is currently no integrated way to manage voice communications across an organization as a corporate asset. Employees generally do not record or persistently store their phone conversations. Most business related voice communication assets are gone as quickly as the words are spoken, with no way to manage or store the content of those conversations in any manageable form.
As an illustrative example, consider a sales executive at a company. During the course of a busy day, the executive may make a number of calls, and close several sales, with customers over the phone. Without the ability to organize, store, and later retrieve these conversations, there is no way for the executive to resolve potential issues that may arise, such as recalling the terms of one deal versus another, or challenging a customer who disputes the terms of a previously agreed upon sale. If this executive had the ability to easily retrieve and review conversations, these types of issues could be easily and favorably resolved.
Current tactical radio systems, such as those used by the military, fire, police, paramedics, rescue teams, and first responders, also suffer from a number of deficiencies. Most tactical radio communication must occur through a “live” radio connection between the sender of a message and a recipient. If there is no radio connection between the two parties, there can be no communication. Urgent messages cannot be sent if either the sender or the receiver does not have access to their radio, or a radio circuit connection is not established. Tactical communications are therefore plagued with several basic problems. There is no way (i) to guarantee the delivery of messages, (ii) for a recipient to go back and listen to a message that was not heard in real time; (iii) to control the granularity of the participants in a conversation; (iv) for the system to cope when there is a lack of signal integrity for a live conversation. If a message is not heard live, it is missed. There are no tools for either the sender or a recipient to manage, prioritize, archive and later retrieve (i.e. time-shift) the messages of a conversation that were previously sent.
Yet another drawback with tactical radio communication systems is that only one message can be sent at a time per channel. Consider an example of a large building fire, where multiple teams of fire fighters, police and paramedics are simultaneously rescuing victims trapped in the building, fighting the fire, providing medical aid to victims, and controlling bystanders. If each of the teams is using the same channel, communications may become crowded and chaotic. Transmissions get “stepped on” when more than one person is transmitting at the same time. Also there is no way to differentiate between high and low priority messages. A team inside the burning building fighting the fire or rescuing trapped victims should have a higher priority over other teams, such as those controlling bystanders. If high priority messages are stepped on by lower priority messages, it could not only hamper important communications, but could endanger the lives of the fire fighters and victims in the building.
One possible solution to the lack of ability to prioritize messages is to use multiple channels, where each team is assigned a different channel. This solution, however, creates its own set of problems. How does the fire chief determine which channel to listen too at any point in time? How do multiple teams communicate with one another if they are all on different channels? If one team calls for urgent help, how are other teams to know if they are listening to other channels? While multiple channels can alleviate some issues, it can also cause confusion, creating more problems than if a single channel is used.
The lack of management tools that effectively prioritize messages, that allow multiple conversations to take place at the same time, that enable the time-shifting of messages to guarantee delivery, or that support archiving and storing conversations for later retrieval and review, all contribute to the problems associated with tactical radios. In first responder situations, such as with the military, police, and fire, effective communication tools can literally mean the difference between life and death, or the success or failure of a mission. The above burning building example is useful in illustrating just some of the issues with current tactical radio communications. Similar problems exist with the military, police, first responders and others who use tactical communications.
With packet-based networks, commonly used protocols include Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and User Datagram Protocol (UDP). UDP offers the advantage of fast delivery of data, but at the expense of completeness. Packets may be dropped in transit and not available when attempting to render the data as soon as possible at the destination. In spite of the shortcomings, UDP is the standard for Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) transmissions due to its speed attributes. On the other hand TCP does guarantee the delivery of perfect (i.e., an exact copy of the transmitted data) data, but at the expense of latency. All packets are delivered, regardless of how long it takes. This delay makes TCP impractical for use with “live” phone calls. Currently there are no known protocols that offer the performance advantages of both TCP and UDP, where “good enough” media can be transmitted for rendering as soon as possible, with the eventual delivery of a perfect copy of the media. Also there is no protocol that determines how much information should be sent over the network based on the presence of recipients on the network and their intentions to render the data either live or in a time-shifted mode. In addition, other factors commonly considered, such as network latency, network degradation, packet loss, packet damage, and general bandwidth conditions, are used in determining how much data to transmit. Prior art systems, however, do not consider the presence and intentions of recipients. As a result, the default assumption is that the data is rendered by the recipient in real time. When a recipient is not going to render data immediately, these prior art systems unnecessarily use bandwidth when it is not needed, degrading the overall performance of the network.
For the reasons recited above, telephone, voicemail and tactical voice communications systems are inadequate. An improved voice and media communication and management system and method, and improvements in delivering voice and other media over packet-based networks, including the near real-time synchronization of the storage of voice and other media at both the sending and receiving communication devices and along each hop on the network between the two communication devices is therefore needed.